For anyone interested in a wideranging
and detailed treatment of
the “intelligent design” (ID) controversy,
a thorough reading of the
transcripts from Kitzmiller v
Dover Area School District would
be recommended, except that it is
extremely long, tedious, and often
bogged down in the minutiae of
legal proceedings. Nonetheless, a
selective glimpse at the testimony
is insightful. At issue in Kitzmiller
was a statement directing students
to “keep an open mind” “because
Darwin’s Theory is a theory” and
informing those who were interested
in an alternative view that
the ID “reference book” Of Pandas
and People was available.

In his introduction to The
Panda’s Black Box, Nathaniel
Comfort attempts to unpack the
current teach–the–controversy
strategy. He concludes that the
controversy that exists between ID
proponents and advocates of mainstream
evolutionary theory “is not
about the findings of science.
Rather, it is about the place of science
in society” (p 7). Comfort
champions teaching the controversy,
as long as it is taught in a
humanities environment that is
equipped to handle the rhetoric,
dogma, values, and the political
baggage that it entails.

Scott Gilbert, the only biologist
among the contributors, provides
an interesting look at what it
would take for biologists to “teach
the controversy”. Using his experience
teaching developmental biology,
he lampoons ID as “what science
might be if it lost its respect
for evidence and controls” (p 41)
and adds that “the debate between
evolutionary biology and ‘intelligent
design’ is like a debate over
whether the aerodynamics of the
Boeing 747 are superior to those
of flying carpets” (p 43). These oneliners
aside, Gilbert’s central theme
— that it is important to separate
the scientific content of a theory
from its science–like packaging —
provides a resonant theme.

Michael Ruse and Edward
Larson provide histories of the
design argument and teaching evolution
in public schools, respectively.
Ruse’s piece distills portions
of his much more substantial
Darwin and Design: Does
Evolution Have a Purpose?
(Cambridge [MA]: Harvard
University Press, 2003) to provide
a history of the design argument
that stretches from the ancient
Greeks to the contemporary ID
movement. He rejects the claim
that ID represents a breakthrough
in scientific thinking.

Likewise, Larson, author of Trial
and Error: The American
Controversy over Creation and
Evolution (third edition, New
York: Oxford University Press,
2003) and Summer for the Gods:
The Scopes Trial and America’s
Continuing Debate over Science
and Religion (New York: Basic
Books, 1997) condenses substantial
scholarship to trace the
debates over evolution in the public
schools from the 1920s into the
21st century. Beyond the abridged
history, Larson touches on the role
played by scientists’ attitudes
toward religion in shaping the
ongoing controversy and on the
impotence of our court system
when it comes to solving the public
controversy.

Jane Maienschein uses the current
controversy over human
embryonic stem cells to illustrate
how the public presentation of
purported science–religion battles
generally fails to capture the range
of issues involved. Her discussion
attempts to separate facts, on
which there may be little disagreement
(for example, that a fertilized
egg contains a full complement of
DNA), from values, on which there
is generally little agreement (for
example, “What rights or respect
should be afforded to an
embryo?”). She also separates metaphysical
debates (that is, those
about what exists) from epistemological
debates (that is, those about
how we know things). By citing the
centrality of evolutionary theory to
any hope of finding a competent
response to threats such as the
H5N1 strain of avian flu and the loss
of biodiversity, she provides the
most compelling case for choosing
evolution over ID for our classrooms
and policy–making arenas.

Robert Maxwell Young’s discussion
of scientific reductionism,
materialism and the fact–value distinction
as sources of the
science–religion divide illustrates
at the often–ignored complexity of
the science of human nature.
Rather than attacking either ID
proponents or evolutionists, he
provides a useful examination of
historical transitions that accompanied
the shift from natural theology
to materialist science. The centerpiece
of his discussion casts
Darwin’s theory as “arguably the
most important idea in the history
of the natural or human sciences”
(p 13).

The Panda’s Black Box is an
accessible reader that quickly and
deftly surveys the current evolution–
ID debates from a range of
philosophical and historical
angles. It provides a useful synopsis
of considerable scholarship on
the issues involved. Despite the
considerable abridgment of several
lines of argument owing to its
brevity, it manages to convey a
sense of the debates that is accessible
and sufficiently footnoted to
allow those who are so inclined to
dig deeper into the quagmire of
“the controversy” surrounding the
place of science in our society.

About the Author(s):

Glenn Sanford is Associate Professor
of Philosophy in the Department of
Psychology and Philosophy, Sam
Houston State University.